W.    E.    MANLEY 


B5Z4I8 
.HZ79 


THE  RICH  MAN 
AND 
LAZARUS 


FEB    6    19G' 


'-^  \ 


Price :— One  copy  of  any  one  Number,  20  Cents  ;  Four  copies,  60  Cents  ; 
Ten  copies,  $1.00;  One  Hundred  copies,  $8.00. 


t: 


_^^-"-*^'^  (      OCT  V>  1920 

BIBLICAL  expositor: 


A   QUARTERLY. 

FublistLed    Once    in    Ttiree    Is/Ionttis   at 
CHICAGO,     ILL. 


Each  number  containiug  an  Exposition  of  some  important  pas- 
sage of  Scripture,   or  subject  of  Theology,  and 
containing  from  32  to  48  pages. 


BY  REV.  W.  E.  xMANLEY, 

AUTHOR  OF  THE  "BIBLICAL  REVIJ]W,"  OR  NEW  AND  IMPROV 
ED  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BIBLE. 


VOIii.  I. 


Number  I. Rich  Man  and  Lazarus. 


OCT  .i  ^i  1920 


THE  RICH  MAN  AND  LAZARUS. 


LUKE  XVI. 


19.  There  was  a  certain  rich 
man,  which  was  clothed  in  purple 
and  fine  linen,  and  fared  sumptu- 
ously every  day: 

20.  And  there  was  a  certain 
beggar  named  Lazarus,  which  was 
laid  at  his  gate,  full  of  sores, 

21.  And  desiring  to  be  fed  with 
the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the 
rich  man's  table:  moreover  the 
dogs  came  and  licked  his  sores. 

22.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that 
the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried 
by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bos- 
om: the  rich  man  also  died,  and 
was  buried ; 

23.  And  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his 
eyes,  being  in  torments,  and  see- 
eth  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus 
in  his  bosom. 

24.  And  he  cried  and  said,  Fa- 
ther Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me, 
and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may 
dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water, 
and  cool  my  tongue  ;  for  I  am  tor- 
mented in  this  flame. 

25.  But  Abraham  said,  Son,  re- 
member that  thou  in  thy  lifetime 
receivdst   thy  good    things,    and 


Lazarus  evil  things:  but  now  lie 
is  comforted,  and  thou  art  tor- 
mented. 

26.  And  beside  all  this,  between 
us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf 
fixed :  so  that  they  which  would 
pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot ; 
neither  can  they  pass  to  us,  that 
would  come  from  thence. 

27.  Then  he  said,  I  pray  thee 
therefore,  father,  that  thou  would- 
est  send  him  to  my  father's  house. 

28.  For  I  have  five  brethren ; 
that  he  may  testify  unto  them, 
lest  they  also  come  into  this  place 
of  toiment. 

29.  Abraham  saith  unto  him, 
They  have  Moses  and  the  proph- 
ets ;  let  them  hear  them. 

30.  And  he  said,  Nay,  father 
Abraham:  but  if  one  went  unto 
them  from  the  dead,  they  will  re- 
pent. 

31.  And  he  said  unto  him,  If 
they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  per- 
suaded, though  one  rose  from  the 
dead. 


We  propose  to  explain  the  foregoing  passage  in 
the  light  of  the  context,  having  in  view  all  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  was  originally  spoken. 
We  do  this,  not  only  hecanse  we  would  understand 
the  passage  and  make  a  right  application  of  it ;  but 


(/ 


b  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

we  would,  as  far  as  possible,  redeem  the  Scriptures 
from  the  reproach  of  giving  its  sanction  to  such  a 
doctrine  as  this  passage  has  been  made  to  support. 

We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  this  passage  as 
"  the  jparahle  of  the  ricli  man  and  Lazarus."  Tliis  is 
the  common  way  of  referring  to  it ;  and  yet,  some 
interpreters  maintain  that  the  passage  is  not  a  para- 
ble, but  a  historical  narrative.  This,  then,  seems  to 
be  the  proper  subject  to  discuss  Urst. 

It  may  seem  uncharitable,  but  we  have  sometimes 
had  our  doubts,  as  to  the  integrity  and  sincerity  of 
those  who  say  this  is  not  a  parable ;  for  at  times  they 
will  refer  to  the  passage  inadvertantly,  as  every  body 
else  does,  as  \\\q  ])arcLble  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, 
at  the  same  time  that  they  declare  it  to  be  history 
and  not  a  parable. 

It  is  a  parable.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it. 
There  can  be  none  with  any  fair-minded  and  unpreju- 
diced person.  We  are  quite  sure  it  would  never 
have  been  regarded  in  any  other  light,  if  it  had  not 
been  to  support  a  favorite  creed.  The  passage  is  in  a 
discourse  of  parables.  It  is  associated  whli  other 
passages  that  are  universally  regarded  as  parables. 
It  has  the  same  form  and  construction.  It  evidently 
aims  at  the  same  thing.  The  only  ditference  is,  that 
the  others  are  taken  from  the  customs  and  habits  of 
the  people,  and  this  from  their  superstitions;  —  the 
others  from  tilings  temporal  and  on  earth,  and  this 
from  the  realms  of  the  spirits.  The  doctrines  and 
principles  inculcated  are  the  same  in  all  of  them. 

The  parable  of  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Piece  of 
Silver,  the  Unjust  Steward,  the  Prodigal  Son,  and 
the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  are  all  together,  and  were 
spoken  on  one  occasion.  If  we  call  one  of  them  a 
parable,  why  not  the  rest?  If  all  are  parables,  but 
the  last,  what  reason  can  be  given  for  this  exception  ? 

"  The  passage  is  not  called  a  parable."     That  is  so. 


THE   EICH   MAN    AND    LAZAEUS.  7 

Neither  are  the  others  called  parahles  but  the  first; 
jet  all  admit  tliej  are  parables.  It  was  not  common 
ibr  the  Savior  to  tell  tlie  people,  when  he  was  using 
parables  and  when  not.  The  circumstances  existin<^, 
at  the  time,  made  this  evident,  with  no  reasonable 
chance  for  mistake.  Besides,  it  will  not  do  to  call 
the  passage  real  history ;  for  if  we  ,do,  we  will  find 
onrselves  involved  in  absurdities,  contradictions  and 
impossibilities.     Let  us  see:  — 

That  there  was  a  rich  man  who  fared  sumptuously 
every  day,  and  was  clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen, 
may  be  admitted.  There  have  been  many  such. 
That  such  a  man  died  and  was  buried,  may  also  be 
admitted.  Such  men  die  as  well  as  others.  That 
there  was  a  beggar,  named  Lazarus,  who  was  laid  at 
a  rich  man's  gate,  and  desired  to  be  fed  with  the 
crumbs  that  fell  from  his  table,  we  need  not  dispute. 
Such  things  have  occurred  many  times  in  the  history 
of  our  race.  So  far  there  is  nothing  unnatural  or 
imprubable. 

But  when  we  follow  these  persons  into  the  other 
world,  and  undertake  to  explain  what  is  said  of  them, 
in  this  passage,  as  real  history,  we  meet  with  insuper- 
able diliiculties.  Does  any  one  believe  that  fire  and 
water  exist  in  the  spirit  world,  and  answer  there  the 
same  purposes  as  here  ?  Does  any  one  believe  that 
the  plnce  of  happiness  is  separated  from  the  place  of 
misery  by  a  great  gulf?  Besides,  it  would  seem  that 
these  men  went  to  their  respective  places  of  destina- 
tion in  bodily  form.  Their  identity  is  kept  in  view 
throughout  the  passage.  There  is  allusion  to  the 
tongue  of  the  rich  man,  the  finger  of  the  beggar,  and 
the  losom  of  Abraham.  The  plain  inference  is,  that 
the  rich  man  went  to  his  place  of  torment,  in  the  same 
condition  as  that  in  which  he  died ;  and  that  the  beg 
gar  was  carried  by  the  angels  to  Abraham's  bosom, 
in  the  same  condition  as  when  he  was  taken  from  the 
rich  man's  gate.     No  one  believes  that  these  things 


8  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

are  to  be  understood  literally.  Those  who  insist  on  a 
literal  or  historical  construction  of  the  passage,  as  a 
whole,  are  obliged  to  confess  that  much  of  it  is  ligura- 
tive.  We  are  more  consistent.  We  regard  the 
whole  passage  as  alike,  and  altogether  a  parable,  like 
the  other  parables  with  which  it  is  associated. 

Before  leaving  this  topic,  let  us  see  how  a  historical 
interpretation  will  suit  the  orthodox  theology,  at  the 
present  day.  Those  who  insist  on  this  view  of  the 
passage,  should  be  made  to  see  distinctly,  what  conse- 
quences it  involves.  I  suspect,  if  this  passage  is  his- 
torically true,  that  the  religionists,  who  invoke  its  aid, 
to  build  up  their  faith  and  to  overthrow  ours,  will 
find  they  must  modify  their  system,  very  materially, 
to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  the  Savior's  teaching. 
To  bring  the  matter  directly  before  them,  I  would 
ask,  —  Do  they  believe  in  such  a  future  state  as  is 
here  described  ?  They  say  this  passage  is  no  fiction, 
but  a  statement  of  facts.  But  do  they  believe  the 
facts  here  stated?  Surely  they  believe  in  facts. 
They  can  not  reject  facts.  They  say  the  passage  is 
no  parable.  Let  them  then  abide  by  this  declaration. 
Will  they  do  so  ?     Can  they  do  so  ? 

If  the  passage  is  real  history ;  if  it  states  facts,  then 
it  follows,  that  heaven  and  hell  are  near  together,  and 
men  can  talk  with  each  other,  and  be  acquainted  with 
each  other's  condition  in  the  two  places.  Do  people, 
at  the  present  day,  believe  this?  There  was  a  time 
when  this  was  believed,  and  not  many  years  ago ; 
and  the  sensibilities  of  the  people  do  not  appear  to 
have  been  greatly  disturbed  by  this  view  of  the  snb- 
iect.  The  renowned  Doctor  Edwards  thought  the 
arrangement  an  excellent  one  for  increasing  the  hap- 
piness of  the  saints.  It  would  make  them  appreciate 
their  privileges,  and  enjoy  them  with  a  better  relish, 
when  they  saw  their  friends  and  relations  in  torments, 


TH«    RICn   MAN   A]SrD    LAZARUS.  9 

and  heard  their  ceaseless  and  unavailing  cries  for 
mercy.  This  is  no  fabrication.  We  ai-e  stating  what 
every  body  knows.  Others,  scarcely  less  renowned 
than  Doctor  Edwards,  thouglit  and  taught  in  the  same 
-^ay  —  at  least  they  taught  so.  But  now  this  view  is 
generally  discarded.  That  heaven  and  hell  are  so 
near  together,  is  regarded  as  a  serious  impediment  in 
the  way  of  the  popuhxr  belief;  and  sundry  expedients 
are  resorted  to,  to  get  rid  of  the  difhculty.  It  suits 
the  popular  taste  better,  in  these  days  of  rehnement 
and  philanthropy,  to  regard  tlie  two  places  as  tarther 
separated.  We  can  hardly  make  up  our  minds,  to 
look  with  joy,  or  even  with  indifference,  on  the  suf- 
ferings of  our  nearest  and  dearest  friends,  when  we 
get  into  the  other  world ;  or  believe  that  the}-  will 
Took  upon  us  with  these  feelings.  And  yet  we  must 
believe  this,  if  the  passage  before  us  is  a  statement 
of  facts.  The  passage  does  represent  that  the  place 
of  happiness,  and  the  pUice  of  misery,  are  near  to- 
gether ;  that  men  in  the  two  places  can  talk  together, 
and  are  acquainted  with  each  other's  condition.  It 
does  farther  represent,  that  Abraliam  looked  upon  the 
torments  of  the  rich  man,  whom  he  calls  his  son,  and 
for  whom,  being  his  son,  one  would  think  he  ought  to 
feel  some  synipathy,  as  apparently  unmoved.  He 
does  not  indeed  shout,  "  Glory  to  God,"  over  the 
miseries  of  the  danmed.  That  Avas  a  refinement  of 
an  atter  age.  But  he  shows  a  degree  of  indifference 
and  stoicism,  which  we  should  hardly  expect,  in  such 
a  saint  as  he  is  represented  to  be.  We  are  none  of  us 
now  willing  to  be  like  him.  But  how  are  we  to  help 
ourselves,  if  the  passage  before  us  is  a  piece  of  real 
history  ?  There  is  no  way  ;  and  those  who  maintain 
that  this  passage  is  not  a  parable,  but  a  historical  nar- 
rative, must  be  prepared  to  meet  the  facts.  If  they 
recoil  at  such  a  heaven  (and  who  would  not?)  they 
must  still  accept  it,  or  take  the  only  alternative — a 
place  with  the  rich  man. 


10  BIELICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

The  difficulty  we  have  noticed,  is  not  the  only  one. 
If  the  passage  is  a  historical  statement,  the  popular 
theoloo-y  is  wronsf  in  regard iiifj  heaven  and  hell  as 
up  and  doion,  or  above  and  heloiv.  According  to  this 
passage,  heaven  is  no  higher  than  hell,  and  hell  is  no 
lower  than  heaven.  Both  are  on  a  common  level. 
The  rich  man  did  not  look  i/jj,  when  he  addressed 
Abraham ;  and  the  latter  did  not  look  doivn,  when  he 
replied.  The  gnlf  was  between  them,  and  they  looked 
and  spoke  across  it.     Poets  have  said  and  sung, — 

"Down  in  the  deep  whei-e  darkness  dwells," 

They  should  say, — 

"  Over  the  gulf  where  darkness  dwells." 

The  last  has  the  same  measure,  and  it  suits  the  /acts 
of  the  case  better  than  the  other,  if  the  passage  we 
are  explaining  is  a  statement  of  /acts.  But  not  only 
the  poets,  but  the  preachers  are  wrong  ;  for  whenever 
they  have  occasion  to  speak  of  heaven  and  hell,  in 
the  other  world,  they  uniformly  represent  heaven  as 
being  above,  and  hell  below.  The  popular  phraseolo- 
gy has  so  long  prevailed,  and  is  so  universal,  that  it 
will  not  be  easily  changed.  "We  would  advise  the 
clergy  to  commence  at  once;  for  evidently  they 
should  make  their  forms  of  expression  agree  with 
facts.  As  the  matter  now  stands,  they  misrepresent 
the  facts,  every  time  they  refer  to  the  subject. 

This  is  not  all.  The  clergy  misrepresent  facts 
whenever  they  speak  of  men  leaving  this  world  for 
their  future  abode.  Of  the  good,  they  say,  "  They 
have  gone  ti^  to  heaven,"  of  the  bad,  "  They  have 
gone  dow)i  to  hell."  Evidently  this  is  wrong ;  for  if 
the  good  go  up,  and  the  bad  go  down,  when  they 
leave  the  world,  how  do  they  come  to  be  in  the  same 
locality,  immediately  afterwards  ?  We  know  of  no 
principle  of  natural  or  moral  philosophy,  by  which 


THE   RICH   MAN   AND    LAZARUS.  11 

meri,  leavino;  a  given  point,  and  going  in  exactly 
opposite  directions,  can  be  brought  near  enough  to- 
gether to  hold  conversation,  either  in  a  short  or  a 
long  time  afterwards.  If  our  friends  know  of  any 
such  principle,  let  them  explain  it ;  if  they  do  not, 
then  let  them  confess  that  they  are  constantly  misrep- 
resenting facts,  when  they  refer  to  this  subject.  The 
ancients^  believed  that  when  men  left  the  world  — the 
good  and  the  bad  — they  went  in  tl>e  same  general 
direction  —  they  all  went  down.  Evidently  the  an- 
cients were  right,  and  the  moderns  are  wrong.  The 
latter  liave  a  iri'eat  work  before  them,  to  change  the 
long  estabhshed  usage ;  and  the  sooner  they  begin  the 
better.  If  they  do  iiot  like  the  idea  of  going  doiun, 
then  let  them  take  the  other  direction,  but  let  them 
represent  that  all  go  the  same  way.  This  the  passage 
befure  us  rerpuresj  if  it  be  a  statement  of  facts. 

We  are  disposed  to  notice,  in  this  place,  one  thing 
that  is  favorable  to  the  popular  belief.  The  passage 
is  not  against  the  orthodox  interpretation  in  all  re- 
spects. It  is  a  favorable  circumstance  tliat  the  Savior 
does  not  locate  the  great  gulf.  He  does  not  tell  in 
what  part  of  the  underworld  it  is  placed.  He  docs 
not  tell  us,  whether  it  is  in  the  center,  or  on  one  side. 
He  does  not  tell  us,  on  which  side  of  the  gulf  ]o  the 
largest  territory  —  whether  the  Elysian  or  the  Tarta- 
rian region  is  most  extensive. 

But  how  does  this  favor  the  common  belief,  you 
will  ask?  It  lavors  it  in  two  ways.  One  is,  that  on 
the  side  of  the  blessed,  there  may  be  space  enough  to 
allow  one  to  retire  to  the  outskirts,  and  escape,  for  a 
time,  from  the  dolorous  groans  and  wild  bowlings  of 
the  damned,  among  whom,  perhaps,  are  fathers  or 
mothers,  husbands  "or  wives,  parents  or  children,  or 
others  dear  as  our  own  life. 

Men  talk  as  if  this  would  be  some  relief  to  theni ; 
and  possibly  they  may  be  favored  in  this  way.     It  is 


12  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

often  said,  when  thej  feel  themselves  embarrassed 
with  the  difficulties  of  their  faith,  that  they  will  not 
know  that  tlieir  friends  are  in  hell.  Bat  tliey  will 
know  that  they  are  not  in  heaven ;  and  where  else 
can  they  be  but  in  hell  ?  If  they  think  they  can  be 
ha])py  in  heaven,  while  their  friends  are  miserable  in 
hell,  provided  they  are  a  little  way  off,  and  out  of 
sight  and  hearing  of  the  awful  scene,  it  is  well  for 
them  to  have  the  opportunity.  We  do  not  sympa- 
thize with  such.  We  think  we  should  be  drawn  as 
near  to  our  friends  as  possible.  We  should  cling  to 
the  very  borders  of  the  gulf,  and  with  unuttemble 
yearning,  we  should  gaze  "upon  the  dear  ones  in  mis- 
ery. If  we  could  do  otherwise  than  this,  we  should 
feel  that  we  were  unworthy  a  place  in  Paradise. 

The  other  circumstance  favorable  to  orthodoxy  is, 
that  we  are  now  permitted  to  enlarge  our  charities,  to 
almost  any  extent,  requii-ed  by  the  progress  of  the 
age,  and  believe  in  the  salvation  of  as  laig-e  a  number 
as  we  ])lease,  only  excepting  a  very  few,  to  avoid  the 
reproach  of  being  Universalists.  Perhaps  you  do  not 
see  the  point.  As  the  matter  now  stands,  we  may 
suppose  that  almost  the  whole  of  the  underworld  i^  on 
the  side  of  the  saved,  and  very  little  of  it  on  the  side 
of  the  lost.  The  gulf,  you  know,  used  to  be  entirely 
on  one  side,  and  it  was  the  side  that  suited  the  spirit 
of  the  age.  But  in  modern  times,  it  has  been  ascer- 
tained, that  this  was  a  mistake.  The  gulf  is  really  on 
the  other  side,  so  that  now  the  redeemed  of  the  Lord 
have  a  wide  territory  for  their  occupancy.  It  is  large 
enough  for  almost  any  number; — it  is  large  enough 
for  almost  all  men.  The  space,  oji  the  other  side,'^is 
small,  and  by  some  unexplained  law  of  nature,  it  is 
growing  smaller  all  the  time ;  and  some  of  our  wisest 
spiji'itual  geologists  are  beginning  to  suspect  that  it 
will  ultimately  disappear,  and  the  gulf  with  it,  and 
leave  the  whole  country  in  possession  of  the  saints, 


THE    RICH   MAN    AND    LAZAEUS.  13 

thongli   to  express  such  an  opinion,  is  not   deemed 
quite  safe  and  prudent  just  now. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said_,  that  this  is  not  treating  the 
subject  with  as  nuich  seriousness  as  is  required.  We 
have  only  to  say,  —  If  we  do  not  treat  the  subject 
seriously,  it  is  all  involuntary.  The  opinions  of  men 
are  so  very  absurd  sometimes,  that  we  can  hardly 
help  smiling  at  their  ridiculousness. 

Here  let  me  ask,  What  will  the  popular  expounder 
now.  do  ?  Will  he  insist  that  the  Savior  is  stating 
facts,  and  still  refuse  to  receive  his  tacts  and  act  upon 
them?  Will  he  still  claim  that  this  passage  proves 
future  rewards  and  punishments,  and  then  deny  that 
rewards  and  punishments  are  administered  in  any 
such  form  as  here  described  %  There  is  great  incon- 
sistency in  this.  If  the  passage  proves  the  doctrine 
of  future  punishment,  it  also  clearly  points  out  the 
manner  of  its  infliction.  If  there  is  a  place  of  happi- 
ness hereafter,  and  a  place  of  misery,  they  are  just 
such  places  as  are  here  described,  having  the  same 
proximity  and  relative  position ;  and  we  must  so  un- 
derstand' the  subject,  and  make  our  language  to  cor- 
respond, or  we  must  give  up  this  passage  as  proving 
the  doctrine.  No;  tliere  is  one  other  alternative; 
and  that  is  —  to  be  very  inconsistent  —  to  urge  a  pas- 
sage to  prove  a  doctrine,  and  then  to  deny  the  doc- 
trine it  proves. 

We  have  not  yet  stated  the  most  serioug  objection 
to  the  idea  that  this  passage  is  a  narrative  and  not  a 
parable.  We  have  seen  that,  with  this  view,  it  does 
not  teach  the  modern  orthodox  doctrine.  It  may, 
and  may  not  be  a  worse  view  of  the  case,  to  say  that, 
with  this  view,  it  does  teach  the  ancient  heathen  doc- 
trine. If  the  Savior  is  giving  a  piece  of  real  history, 
he  could  not  represent  the  modern  views  in  a  more 
defective  form;  he  could  not  have  represented  the 
heathen  doctrine  any  better.     We  are  sorry  to  take 


14  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

the  divine  Teacher  out  of  company  so  respectable, 
and  put  him  into  company  so  disrepntable.  If  the 
passage  that  speaks  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  is 
to  be  understood  literally,  the  doctrine  inculcated  is 
the  ancient  pagan  doctrine. 

There  was  a  time,  to  be  sure,  when  even  the  Pa- 
gans did  not  believe  it ;  but  there  was  a  period  still 
later,  wdien  they  did  beJieve  in  future  rewards  and 
punishments  as  here  set  forth ;  and  they  believed  this 
in  the  time  of  Christ.  The  Jews  believed  it  also, 
having  learned  it  from  the  Heathens,  while  in  captiv- 
ity, and  under  foreign  bondage. 

In  the  first  place,  the  heathen  doctrine  was,  that  all 
men  went  from  this  world  in  the  same  direction. 
This  harmonizes  with  the  passage  before  us.  They 
believed  that  the  place  of  happiness  and  of  misery, 
was  an  underworld  to  which  all  men  went  immediate- 
ly after  death.  This,  too,  agrees  with  the  passage. 
They  believed  that  the  place  of  happiness  and  of  mis- 
ery were  near  together.  They  did  not  then  see  any 
objection  to  this  view ;  for  that  was  not  an  age  of 
benevolence  like  tlie  present.  It  was  not  at  all  de- 
rogatory to  the  character  of  Abraham,  in  the  age  of 
Christ,  that  he  looked  with  composure  on  the  torment 
of  the  rich  man.  The  theology  that  men  believe  in, 
always  takes  its  character  from  the  age  they  live  in. 
That  theology  was  ada]:)tod  to  a  rude  and  barbarous 
age.  It  is  not  adapted  to  the  nineteenth  century ; 
and  all  sorts  of  expedients  are  resorted  to,  with  a 
view  to  soften  down  its  rugged  features,  and  adapt  it 
to  the  generous  and  philanthropic  spirit  of  the  pres- 
ent age.  Those  who  can  not  deny  it  altogether,  are 
changing  it  to  a  more  comely  form,  and  doing  as 
much  as  possible,  in  the  same  direction,  without  deny- 
ing it.  If  the}''  must  confess  that  there  is  such  a 
place,  as  an  endless  hell,  they  are  for  keeping  it  as 
much  as  possible  out  of  sight.     At  all  events,  they  do 


THE   KICH   MAN    AND    LAZAEUS.  15 

not  mean  it  shall  disturb  the  happiness  of  the  immor- 
tal world,  by  it  frightful  exhibitions  of  misery. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Heathens,  who  used  the  samo 
lano-uao-e  as  Christ,  called  the  place  of  future  rewards 
ancf  puuishments  by  the  same  name.  The  name  ot 
the  underworld,  among  those  who  used  the  Greek 
language,  was  hades,  the  very  word,  nsed  m  this  pas- 
sao-e,  to  denote  the  same  thing. 

There  is  a  Httle  ambiguity  in  the  passage,  that  may 
as  well  be  explained  here  as  anywhere.  It  seems  to 
make  hades,  here  rendered  hell,  to  be  the  abode  alone 
of  the  rich  man,  when,  in  fact,  that  is  not  the  inten- 
tion of  Christ.  The  word  hell  was  the  name  ot  the 
underworld,  including  the  place  of  happiness,  as  well 
as  the  place  of  punishment.  The  rich  man  was  m 
hades  or  hell ;  that  is,  he  was  in  his  part  of  it.  Biit- 
Abraham  and  the  beggar  were  also  in  hades  ;  that  is, 
in  their  part  of  it.  Hence  it  is,  that  the  abode  of  the 
beggar  and  Abraham  is  not  mentioned.  There  was 
no^'necessity   of  naming   it,    as   hades  included   the 

whole,  T      • 

There  is  no  ancient  usage  to  justify  the  application 
of  hades  to  a  place  of  punishment,  in  the  other  world. 
Bible  usages  certainly  gives  no  sanction  to  such  an 
opinion,  and  heathen  usage  does  not.  But  heathen 
usage  does  justify  an  application  of  the  word  to  the 
icndenoorld,  including  a  place  of  happiness,  as  well 
as  misery ;  and  that  lis  the  usage  in  the  passage  we 
are  now'explaining.  This,  with  other  circumstances, 
compels  us  to  say,"tliat  the  passage  teaches  the  pagan 
doctrine,  allowing  that  it  is  to  be  interpreted  histori- 
cally. .  ,  , 

We  come  then  to  this  alternative,  either  to  make 
the  Savior  to  have  taught  a  pagan  doctrine,  and  one 
of  the  most  offensive  doctrines  that  paganism  ever 
engendered, —  or,  to  make  him  to  have  forme4^1  a  par- 
abhi  from  pagan  mythology,  with  a  view  to  illustrate 


16  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

some  important  subject,  to  be  ascertained  from  the 
connection  in  which  the  passage  is  found.  We  prefer 
the  iatter;  and  we  should  think  all  people,  who  have 
any  respect  for  the  Savior,  would  do  the  same. 

On  the  subject  of  the  historical  character  of  the 
passage,  we  may  add  one  more  remark,  and  then  we 
will  proceed  to  other  matters,  connected  with  the  pas- 
sage. Where  did  Christ  obtain  the  facts  he  here 
communicates,  if  they  are  tacts?  No  one  certainly 
ever  came  back  from  the  other  world  to  inform  him 
of  the  incidents  that  transpired  there.  We  have  no 
evidence  that  Jesus  had  been  in  the  other  world ;  and 
we  can  not  say,  therefore,  that  he  is  reporting  what 
he  saw  himself  The  passage  itself  is  opposed 'to  any 
sucli  idea,  as  that  Christ,  or  any  other  person,  had 
been  authorized  to  report  the  transactions  of  the  spirit 
world.  The  passage  says,  that  no  one  was  permitted 
to  go  from  the  dead  to  admonish  the  living.  Then 
Christ,  of  course,  had  not  been  permitted  to  do  this. 
The  passage  says,  that  men  in  this  world,  will  not  be- 
lieve, though  one  should  rise  from  the  dead  to  warn 
them.  Shall  we  say  that  Jesus  himself  was  doincr 
this  useless  work,  — what  he  admits  to  be  so?  "^ 

How  plain  it  is,  that  the  passage  itself  refutes  the 
idea  of  its  historical  construction  ?  It  tells  us  that 
those,  who  had  Moses  and  the  prophets,  had  enough, 
without  any  one  to  go  unto  them  from  the  dead. 
Would  this  have  been  said,  if  Jesus  was,  at  that  very 
moment,  reporting  the  doings  of  the  other  world  ? 
And  if  those  who  had  Moses  and  the  prophets,  did 
not  need  a  reporter  from  the  unseen  abode  of  spirits, 
to  make  them  repent,  of  course  those  who  have 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  Jesus  besides,  do  not 
need  any  messenger  of  this  kind.  The  conclusion  is, 
that  Jesus  was  not  such  a  messenger,  either  to  the 
Jews  or  to  us ;  and  therefore,  the  passage  before  us, 
is  no  such  message  as  men  have  regarded  it. 


THE    RICH   MAIS"    AND    LAZARUS.  17 

We  said  tliere  was  no  ancient  usage  to  justify  the 
application  of  hades  to  a  place  of  future  pnnisljment. 
We  think  something  more  should  be  said  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  the  lault  of  our  interpreters  generally, 
that  they  have  said  so  little  on  this  point,  when  dis- 
cussing the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  We  will  supply 
this  detV'Ct,  in  as  few  words  as  possible. 

The  Old  Testament  does  not  contain  this  word,  but 
it  contains  a  corresponding  word.  Slicol  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  hades  of  the  New  Testament,  are  cor- 
respon.liii'^  terms.  One  is  a  Htbrew  word,  and  the 
other  is  Greek.  The  Old  Testament  was  translated 
into  the  Greek  language,  from  two  to  three  hundred 
years  before  the  time  of  Christ.  In  this  translation, 
hades  is  used  to  represent  sheol,  making  it  evident 
that  both  were  understood,  at  that  time,  as  meaning 

the  same  thing.  ^,  i  m    - 

The  meaning  of  sheol,  all  through  the  Old  lesta- 
ment,  is  that  of  grave.  In  about  half  the  instances _it 
is  translated  grave.  It  should  be  so  translated  in 
many  more.  x\nd  if  it  be  necessary  to  make  the 
translation  uniform,  grave  is  the  term  that  ought  to 
be  employed  in  all  cases.  Whatever  plausible  rea- 
sons may 'be  given  for  understanding  a  few  passages 
differently,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  to  favor  the 
idea  WvAi  sheol  denotes  a  place  of  spirits  for  the  good 
or  bad  in  the  other  world ;  and  the  same  may  be  said 
of  its  corresponding  Greek  word. 

It  was  at  a  later  day  that  hades  began  to  be  applied 
by  the  Jews  to  a  woiid  of  sinrits,  with  one  place  for 
the  good  and  another  for  the  bad.  The  Heathens 
adopted  this  belief  first,  and  the  Jews  afterwards  ;  and 
it  was  still  later  that  it  came  into  the  Christian  church. 

The  term  hades  occurs  ten  or  a  dozen  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  has  there  the  same  meaning  as 
the  Old  Testament  translators  had  given  to  it,  twoor 
three  centuries  before,  with  one  exception  only,  which 
is,  iM  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus. 


18  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

Evidence  more  overwhelming  than  this,  could  nol 
exist,  to  prove  that  this  parable  is  taken  from  jmgan 
mythology.  Li  no  other  instance,  is  there  the  least 
evidence,  that  hades  is  a  place  of  spirits,  or  under 
world,  much  less,  that  there  is  a  great  gulf,  to  separ- 
ate between  the  good  and  the  bad.  But,  in  this  pas- 
sage, the  reference  to  such  a  state  is  very  covious ; 
and  the  fact  shows  clearly  that  the  pagan  theory  of 
the  future  was  had  in  view,  —  not  to  sanction  it,  but 
to  illustrate  another  subject. 

Some  may  think  that  this  passage  proves  the  doc- 
trine of  future  punishment  as  much,  regarded  as  a 
parable,  as  it  would  with  the  historical  view.  If  this 
were  so,  the  doctrine  proved,  would  be  the  pagan 
doctrine,  and  not  the  one  insisted  on  by  the  pojuTlar 
interpreter.  But,  in  fact,  there  is  no  doctrine  of  this 
character,  pagan  or  orthodox,  proved  by  the  passage. 
It  is  the  most  unfortunate  passage  that 'could  be  cpiot- 
ed  for  such  a  purpose,  as  a  m'oment's  thought  will 
convince  any  one. 

The  facts  implied,  in  a  parable,  can  never  be  the 
same  as  the  facts  represented  by  it.  If  I  can  make 
this  plain,  it  will  appear  certain,- that  this  passage 
does  not  and  can  not  teach  future  rewards  aiid  pun- 
ishments. A  parable  is  the  choice  of  07ie  thing  to 
represent  another,  never,  to  represent  the  same.  I  can 
not  make  use  of  future  rewards  and  punishments,  as 
a  parable,  to  teach  future  rewards  and  punishments. 
That  would  be  absurd.  The  moment  that  we  admit 
that  this  is  a  parable,  taken  from  the  retributions  of 
the  other  world,  that  moment  we  nmst  give  up  the 
idea  that  it  teaches  or  represents  the  retributions  of 
the  other  world,  and  must  seek  for  something  else  as 
the  thing  represented. 

I  can  not  use  heaven  to  represent  heaven,  nor  hell 
torepreseiit  hell.  I  can  use  either  to  represent  some- 
thing similar  to  itself,  but  not  the  same  thing,     h 


THE   EICH   MAK    AND    LAZARUS.  19 

parable,  and  the  thing  represented  by  it,  arc  always 
similar.  There  must'be  points  of  resemblance,^  but 
they  can  never  be  the  same.  The  torments  of  the 
rich  man,  in  the  other  world,  can  not  represent  future 
punislnnent;  fur  it  is  itself  future  punishment.  And, 
for  the  same  reason,  the  happiness  of  the  beggar  can 
not  represent  future  rewards.  The  figure  is  one 
thing;  —  that  which  is  represented  by  it,  is  another 
thing  —  similar  to  be  sure,  but  nut  the  same. 

This  point  being  so  obvious,  we  will  call  attention 
to  anotlfer.  It  is  tins:  —  Did  not  the  Savior  give  his 
sanction  to  the  common  doctrine  by  making  use  of  it 
as  a  figure  or  parable  ?  By  his  reference  to  a  place 
of  rewards  and  punishments,  did  he  not  give  his 
hearers  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  such  a  place  ? 
Or,  to  express  the  same  thing  in  a  different  form. 
Would  he  assume  that  a  man  died  and  went  to  hell, 
and  another  died  and  went  to  heaven;  and  that  a 
conversation  took  place  betAveen  the  two  places,  hav- 
ing reference  to  their  condition,  if  no  such  thing  ever 
occurred'^  One  might  say  that  this  is  a  species  of 
falsehood. 

The  argument  is  more  plausible  than  sound.  A 
parable  niay  be  drawn  from  real  life,  or  it  may  be 
drawn  from  fiction,  The  Savior  took  his  parables 
from  various  sources.  He  derived  some  of  them  from 
the  social  and  domestic  customs  of  the  people,  as  in 
th^  case  of  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  piece  of  silver,  the 
prodigal  son,  or  unjust  steward.  Some,  from  the 
institutions  of  the  country,  as  that  of  the  unjust 
judge,  the  nobleman;  and  some  from  the  siqyei'sti- 
tions  of  the  people,  as  that  of  Satan  casting  out  Satan; 
the  evil  spirit  that  went  out  of  a  man,  and  wandered 
through  dry  places,  etc. ;  the  condition  of  the  rich 
man  and  the  beggar  after  death. 

The  facts  implied  in  a  parable  are  not  important, 
provided  we  understand  them  sufficiently  to  see  the 


20  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

point  and  bearing  of  the  parable.  It  does  not  follow 
that  the  things  implied  did  actually  take  place.  They 
are  quite  as  likely  not  to  have  taken  place.  If  we 
make  the  Savior  to  sanction  every  thing  implied  in 
liis  parables,  I  fear  we  shall  not  have  so  good  an  opin- 
ion of  him  as  we  ought.  Did  he  sanction  the  conduct 
of  the  unjust  judge,  or  the  unjust  steward,  or  impris- 
onment for  debt  till  the  last  farthing  should  be  paid  ? 
Or,  did  he  always  mean  to  sanction  as  true,  what  he 
assumes  to  be  so ;  namely,  that  some  are  so  righteous 
as  to  need  no  repentance ;  that  a  beam  can  be  con- 
tained in  a  man's  eye ;  that  a  man  can  swallow  a 
camel ;  that  the  sons  of  the  Pharisees  did  really  cast 
out  devils  ? 

Did  he  teach  as  true,  that  the  demons  do  really 
take  possession  of  men ;  that  one  woman  had  seven 
such;  that  the  evil  spirit,  in  one  case,  went  out  of  a 
man,  and  went  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest  and 
linding  none ;  and  at  last  returning  with  other  spirits 
more  wicked  than  he?  Did  he  mean,  we  ask,  to 
sanction  these  ideas,  and  to  put  them  forth  as  his  own 
sentiments  ? 

These  were  the  sentiments  generally  held  at  that 
time.  They  belong  on  the  same  list  with  those  im- 
plied in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus. 
Did  the  Savior  believe  the  same  way  ?  Then  why 
did  the  people  persecute  him  ?  Why  were  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  so  incensed  at  him,  if  he  taught 
the  same  doctrines  whicii  they  taught?  And  \V'hy 
did  he  admonish  his  disciples  to  beware  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees?  And  why  did 
he  accuse  the  Pharisees  of  teaching,  for  doctrines,  the 
commandments  of  men  ;  and  that  they  made  void  the 
law  of  God  by  their  traditions  ? 

Christ  took  his  parables  from  various  sources,  even 
from  the  superstitions  of  the  people,  and  from  their 
false  doctrines ;  but  he  did  not  teach  their  doctrines. 
You  can  Und  places  where  their  doctrines  are  referred 


THE    RICH   MAN    AND    LAZARUS.  21 

to,  for  argument  or  illustration ;  but  you  can  find  no 
place  where  he  teaches  the  same  sentiments, 

"What  this  passage  means,  has  not  yet  been  dis- 
cussed. That  it  is  not  history  but  a  parable;  and 
what  it  does  not  teach,  has  been  sufiiciently  explained. 
We  have  been  occupied  with  the  negative,  all  that  is 
required,  "VVe  must  now  introduce  the  positive.  We 
have  removed  the  rubbish  of  popular  exposition. 
We  must  now  build  up  the  beautiful  temple  of  truth. 
It  was  not  well  to  erect  the  edifice,  till  we  had  laid 
the  f  nmdation  on  which  it  could  stand  with  safety. 

What  does  this  passage  mean  ?  What  is  the  sub- 
ject it  was  intended  to  illustrate,  or  the  doctrine  it 
was  designed  to  teach  ? 

The  best  way  to  answer  such  questions  as  these, 
and  the  only  proper  and  safe  way,  is  to  look  carefully 
at  the  connection,  and  the  circumstances  attending  its 
utterance.  It  is  an  old  and  true  maxim,  that  a  person 
is  known  by  the  company  he  keeps.  This  is  no  less 
true  of  a  passage  of  Scripture.  It  is  best  understood 
by  the  connection  in  which  it  is  found.  We  some- 
times speak  of  tmlocking  the  meaning  of  a  passage. 
This  is  not  perhaps  a  bad  figure.  Now  if  the  Savior 
meant  we  should  unlock  the  meaning  of  this  passage, 
he  no  doubt  has  left  the  key  near  the  passage  itself. 
Let  us  look  and  see  if  we  can  find  it. 

The  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  is  con- 
tained in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  chapter  of 
Luke ;  but  the  subject  commences  with  the  fifteenth 
chapter.  The  circumstances  that  gave  rise  to  this 
discourse  of  the  Savior,  are  distinctly  and  clearly 
stated,  and  they  are  worthy  of  special  attention.  The 
writer  says, —  "Then  drew  near  unto  him  all  the 
pubUcans  and  sinners  for  to  hear  him.  And  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes  murmured,  saying,  This  man 
receiveth  sinners  and  eateth  with  them." 


22  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOK. 

The  publicans  and  sinners  were  but  one  class  of 
persons.  The  publicans  were  Roman  tax  gatherers. 
They  were  the  special  objects  of  Jewish  hate.  And 
to  charge  the  Savior  with  associating  with  them,  was 
the  greatest  reproach  his  enemies  could  cast  upon 
bin:.  "Sinners"  is  not  here  used  in  a  moral  sense, 
nor  in  its  modern  sense.  It  is  used  in  the  ancient 
Jewish  sense.  It  denotes  the  Gentiles  —  all  that 
were  not  Jews.  They  were  all  looked  npon  by  the 
Jews  as  outcasts  fi'om  God,  and  the  worthy  objects  of 
his  vengeance.  When  the  Pharisees  murmured,  say- 
ing, This  man  receiveth  sinners  and  eateth  with  them, 
they  meant,  that  he  associated  with  the  Gentiles, 
even  the  most  abandoned,  the  publicans.  This  was 
equivalent  to  saying,  that  he  could  not  be  the  prom- 
ised Messiah. 

As  the  publicans  and  sinners  were  one  class,  so  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes  were  one  class.  The  Pharisees 
were  the  principal  religious  sect  among  the  Jews. 
The  Scribes  were  the  religious  teachers  among  the 
Pharisees,  and  were  the  most  prominent  among  the 
enemies  of  Jesus.  When,  therefore,  the  writer  says 
that  the  publicans  and  sinners  were  gathered  together 
to  hear  the  Savior,  he  means  that  the  Gentiles,  even 
the  publicans  did  this.  And  when  he  says  the  JPliari- 
sees  and  Scribes  murmured,  he  means,  that  the  Phari- 
sees did  this,  more  particularly  their  religious  teach- 
ers, the  Scribes. 

Here  then  was  an  exhibition  of  self-righteousness 
that  needed  a  rebuke.  The  Savior  embraces  the 
opportunity  to  administer  the  rebuke,  and  to  give 
these  people  a  few  moral  lessons  that  might  be  useful 
to  them.  He  makes  use  of  his  usnal  method  for 
doing  this;  he  places  before  them  several  parables, 
fitted  to  rebuke  and  instruct  them  at  the  same  time. 

Each  parable  has  two  prominent  characters;  and 
these  two  characters  represent  the  two  clas^ses  of  per- 
sons that  were  present  and  heard  him.     The  first  par- 


t 

THE   RICH   MAN    AND    LAZARUS.  23 

able  is  that  of  the  lost  sheep.  The  sheep  that  was 
lost  denotes  the  publicans  and  sinners.  The  sheep 
that  were  not  lost,  denote  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes. 
Not  that  the  first  class  were  really  not  as  good  as  the 
second,  or  that  the  second  class  were  really  better 
than  the  first.  For  there  can  be  but  little  doubt,  that 
the  publicans  and  sinners  were  really  as  good  as  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes.  But  the  Savior,  to  render  his 
rebukes  more  pointed  and  effective,  reasons  w^tli  the 
self-righteous  Pharisees  on  their  own  premises.  For 
the  time  being,  lie  assumes  that  the  sinners  were  as 
bad  as  the  Pharisees  regarded  them,  and  that  they 
themselves  were  as  good  as  they  claimed  to  be. 

This  being  admitted,  the  conduct  of  Christ  was  not 
to  be  condemned  ;  nor  was  the  murmuring  of  the  ^ 
Pharisees  to  be  excused.  The  owner  of  the  lost 
sheep  went  in  pursuit  of  the  stray  animal  till  he  found 
him,  and  then  brought  him  back  to  the  fold.  Spirit- 
ually the  Savior  was  doing  the  same  thing.  Did  any 
one  murmur  because  the  man  had  sought  his  sheep  ? 
No ;  but  every  one  rejoiced.  How  improper,  then, 
for  the  Pharisees  to  murmur  at  Christ,  when  he  had 
done  the  same  thing  in  principle,  and  a  much  better 
thing  in  tact. 

The  next  parable  is  the  lost  piece  of  silver.  Of 
course  the  application  of  this  is  .the  same  as  the  other. 
The  lost  piece  represents  the  sinners,  the  pieces  not 
.ost  represent  the  Pharisees.  Here  the  Savior  re- 
iTiaiks  that  the  angels  rejoice  over  one  sinner  that 
repenteth.  How  unlike  the  Pharisees,  who  are  mur- 
muring at  the  Savior  for  doing  the  only  thing  that 
would  lead  sinners  to  repentance ;  that  is,  associate 
with  them  and  treat  them  with  kindness.  Here  the 
conduct  of  the  angels  is  made  to  rebuke  these  self- 
righteous  pretenders. 

The  prodigal  son,  in  the  next  parable,  evidently 
represents  the  sinners ;  and  the  elder  brother,  the 
Pharisees.     It  is  interestino-  to  notice  the  lauffuao-e 


24  BIBLICAL    EXPOSITOK. 

and  conduct  of  the  elder  brother.  He  was  angry  and 
Avonld  not  go  in.  The  Pliarisees  were  angry,  too. 
lie  had  been  very  faithful  and  obedient.  He  was,  at 
that  moment,  disregarding  the  father's  wishes.  He 
had  never  disobeyed  at  any  time.  He  was  then  dis- 
obeying. He  had  never  been  properly  rewarded  foi 
his  extreme  fidelity.  How  exact  a  representation  ot 
the  Pharisees?  How  exact  a  representation  of  all 
self-righteous  religionists?  They  never  disobeyed  at 
any  time.  They  are  never  treated  with  sufficient  dis- 
tinction. The  great  Father  is  always  treating  the 
sinners  better  than  them. 

-  Look  at  the  next  parable.  It  is  that  of  the  unjust 
steward.  The  steward  is  the  Pharisees.  His  custom- 
ers are  the  sinners.  This  parable  brings  to  view 
more  particulars  than  either  of  the  others.  There  are 
more  points  of  resemblance  between  the  steward  and 
the  Pharisees,  than  between  them  and  either  of  the 
other  characters.  And  here,  too,  the  Savior  makes 
a  more  direct  application  than  in  the  other  parables. 

The  Pharisees  had  been  God's  steward.  They  had 
been  unfaithful,  and  were  about  to  be  turned  out  of 
the  stewardship.  So  far  the  application  is  perfect. 
But  the  steward,  in  the  parable,  when  he  saw  his  con- 
dition, and  danger  of  being  dismissed,  went  about 
providing  for  the  future.  He  could  not  dig,  to  beg 
he  was  ashamed.  He  evidently  regarded  himself  as 
of  some  consequence.  He  would  not  have  been  a 
proper  representative  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  if 
lie  had  not.  But  though  he  could  not  dig,  nor  beg, 
there  were  other  ways  of  accomplishing  his  object. 
He  could  remit  a  portion  of  the  indebtedness  of  his 
lord's  customers,  and  so  place  them  under  obligations 
to  himself,  which  he  expected,  them  to  cancel,  when 
his  time  of  need  should  come.  He  was  commended 
for  his  wisdom. 

The  Pharisees  would  soon  be  turned  out  of  their 


THE    EICH    MAN    AND    LAZAKUS.  25 

stewardship,  but  they  were  making  no  preparation  for 
their  coming  necessities.  Evidently  they  were  not  as 
wise  as  the  steward.  The  children  of  thisworld— - 
men  in  business  —  are  wiser  tlian  the  children  of 
li2;ht  —  men  in  their  moral  relations.  Plainly  the 
children  of  light  are  here,  the  Pharisees.  They  were 
not  as  wise  in  their  generation,  or  during  their  dis- 
pensation, as  the  steward.  What  they  should  do, 
now  that  Judaism  was  about  coming  to  an  end,  was 
to  embrace  the  Gospel  that  was  soon  to  be  established. 
Then,  as  the  steward  was  received  into  the  houses  of 
his  lord's  customers,  so  they  would  be  received  into 
the  everlasting  habitations  of  the  Gospel. 

In  the  parable,  the  customers  of  the  steward  are  the 
sinners,  or  Gentiles.  They  had  to  come  to  the  stew- 
ard for  oil  and  wine  and  wheat  and  other  necessaries. 
In  like  manner,  the  Gentiles  had  obtained  needful 
things  to  answer  their  spiritual  wants  from  the  Jews, 
The^Jews  had  a  revelation  and  the  Gentiles  had  not. 
The  former  were  the  privileged  class ;  the  latter  were 
dependent.  But  the  time  was  coming  when  it  should 
not  be  so.  It  was  not  long  before  the  Jews  would  be 
cast  out,  and  the  Gentiles  would  take  their  place. 
The  first  would  be  last,  and  the  last  first.  If  the 
Pharisees  appreciated  the  facts  as  they  were,  they 
would  make  friends  of  these  sinners,  rather  than  cast 
them  away  and  despise  them.  The  time  might  come 
when  they  would  need  favors  at  their  hands. 

It  is  seen  all  along  that  'the  parables  are  of  the 
same  general  description.  The  two  characters,  we 
saw  at  the  beginning,  we  see  all  the  way  through ; 
and  the  relations  they  sustain  to  each  other,  are  kept 
distinctly  in  view. 

There  is  one  other  parable  in  this  discourse,  and 
that  is  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  Is  it  not  as  plain 
as  the  light  of  day,  that  the  rich  man  represents  the 


26  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

Pharisees  or  Jews,  and  Lazarus  the  shiners  or  Gen- 
tiles? Of  course  this  is  phiin.  Then  this  parable 
must  be  interpreted  precisely  like  the  others.  What 
one  means,  they  all  mean.  Some  of  them  may  have 
more  particulars  than  the  otliers,  and  they  may  differ 
in  some  minor  points ;  but  tlie  general  representation 
is  the  same.  And  here  let  me  repeat,  that  it  makes 
no  diffi'rence  where  the  parable  is  obtained,  whether 
from  tlie  ordinary  transactions  of  life,  or  from  the 
opinions  of  men  about  the  future.  It  is  the  meaning 
that  we  must  seek  for,  and  not  the  facts  or  fancies 
that  may  have  supphed  the  illustration.  For  exam- 
ple, every  one  can  see  that  the  lost  sheep,  and  tlie 
lost  piece  of  silver,  denote  the  same  thing.  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  they  must  be  interpreted  different- 
ly, because  in  the  one  case,  the  slieep  fold  furnishes 
the  illustration,  and  in  the  other,  the  woman's  purse 
of  money.  It 'would  be  quite  as  reasonable  to  say, 
that  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  must  be 
very  differently  interpreted,  from  that  of  the  steward, 
because  the  one  is  taken  from  the  spirit  land,  and  the 
other  from  the  transactions  of  this  world. 

We  do  not  doubt  that  these  passages  would  all  be 
rightly  interpreted,  if  the  last  had  been  omitted. 
Even  now,  few,  if  any,  ever  refer  the  other  parables 
to  the  future  world.  They  are  rightly  understood,  as 
showing  the  character  and  condition  of  the  two 
classes,  and  the  change  that  was  soon  to  come  over 
them,  having  reference  to  the  present  life  and  not  the 
future.  Why  change  the  application,  when  the  para- 
ble of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  is  added  to  the  rest  ? 
This  is  derived  from  a  different  source,  to  be  sure,  but 
tlie  meaning  is  not  changed.  These  passages  have 
all  one  reference.  They  have  all  one  purpose.  They 
have  all  one  interpretation. 

The  object  of  the  Savior  was  to  show  to  his  Phari- 
saic hearers,  that,  having  been  unfaithful  in  the  trust 


THE    RICH   MAN    AND    LAZARUS.  27 

that  had  been  committed  to  them,  they  were  soon  to 
be  deprived  of  their  privileges,  and  reduced  to  a  con- 
dition of  want  and  suflteriiig;  while  the  Gentiles, 
whom  they  despised  and  hated,  would  embrace  the 
Gospel  aiKl  be  elevated  to  a  condition  of  honor  and 
liappiness,  they  had  never  before  enjoyed.  This  is 
plainly  taught  in  the  jiarable  of  the  steward.  It  is 
still  more  plainly  and  fully  taught,  in  the  parable  of 
the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  Let  the  two  be  noticed 
together,  for  a  moment,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
meaning  of  the  one  is  the  meaning  of  the  other. 

1.  The  hon(»rable  position  of  the  steward,  having 
charge  of  his  lord's  property,  in  the  one  parable,  and 
the  riches  and  purple  and  line  linen  and  sumptuous 
fare  of  the  rich  man,  in  the  other,  have  the  same 
meaning.  The  meaning  is,  that  the  Jews  had,  for  a 
long  time,  been  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  Tliey 
hacf  enjoyed  privileges  not  given  to  the  rest  of  the 
world.  They  had  been  rich^'and  increased  in  goods. 
They  had  been  God's  steward.  The  truths  of  divine 
revelation,  which  had  been  committed  to  them,  they 
had  dispensed  to  others,  to  some  extent.  They  had 
put  the  rest  of  the  world  under  great  obligations  to 
them,  or  more  properly,  perhaps,  to  the  Lord  whom 
they  had  served. 

2.  The  steward  was  accused  of  being  unfaithful. 
The  accusation  was  no  doubt  true.  All  the  circum- 
stances show  it  to  be  true.  The  rich  man  had  not 
done  all  that  was  required  of  him.  Nonspecific  sins 
are  charged  against  him,  but  it  is  plainly  implied  that 
his  conduct  was  not  unexceptionable.  The  same 
thing  is  denoted  in  both  parables. 

8.  The  steward  was  to  be  cast  out  of  the  steward- 
ship.  And  if  he  had  not  provided  against  it,  the 
inference  is,  that  he  would  have  been  reduced  to  great 
want  and  sufifering.  The  death  of  the  rich  man,  and 
the  sufferings  that  followed,  have  the  same  meaning. 
In  both  parables,  the  Jews  are  taught  that  they  were 


28  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

not  worthy  of  their  position ;  that  they  would  soon  be 
cast  out  of  it,  and  brought  down  as  low,  comparative- 
ly, as  their  former  condition  had  been  elevated  and 
happy.  That  this  came  upon  them,  a  few  years  after 
these  parables  were  spoken,  is  known  to  every  body. 
They  had  not  been  faithful  in  that  which  was  least, 
they  were  not  permitted  to  have  charge  of  more. 
They  had  not  been  faithful  in  that  which  was  another 
man's ;  and  they  were  not  entrusted  with  that  which 
should  be  their  own.  This  kind  of  language  occurs 
in  the  immediate  connection,  and  it  means  that  the 
Jews  had  not  been  faithful  in  the  law,  and  they  would 
not  be  permitted  to  have  the  Gospel.  The  one  is 
compared  to  the  unrighteous  mammon,  and  the  other 
is  called  the  true  riches. 

4.  The  steward's  customers  were  the  Gentiles. 
They  came  and  bought  what  they  needed  of  the 
Jews.  They  were  in  want.  They  appear  to  have 
had  no  money  to  pay ;  for  they  obtained  their  sup- 
plies on  credit.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed  in  the 
next  parable,  by  the  poverty  of  Lazarus.  He  desired 
the  crumbs  that  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table.  In 
the  one  parable,  there  is  a  buying  on  credit,  and  in 
the  other,  a  begging  of  what  was  needed.  The  two 
things  are  not  very  unlike.  They  here  express  the 
same  idea.  They  teach  that,  during  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, (the  rich  man's  life  time)  the  Gentiles  were 
poor  and  in  want.  Their  condition  was  like  that  of 
the  beggar.  All  they  had  of  truth  they  obtained  of 
the  Jews. 

5.  The  transfer  of  the  beggar  from  the  rich  man's 
gate,  to  Abraham's  bosom,  denotes  the  elevation  of 
the  Gentiles  to  a  condition  of  privilege  and  of  happi- 
ness, which  they  had  never  before  enjoyed.  This  was 
a  real  occurrence.  For  after  the  Jews  had  fallen,  the 
Gentiles  embraced  the  Gospel,  and  have  been  as 
much  distinguished  above  the  Jews,  as  the  Jews  had 
been  above  them.     The  parable  of  the  steward  has 


THE   RICH   MAN    AND   LAZARUS. 


29 


the  same  idea,  for  it  implies  that  the  time  would 
come,  when  the  steward  would  be  as  dependent  on 
his  customers,  as  they  had  before  been  on  hnn. 

The  resemblance  of  the  two  parables  makes  it  obvi- 
ous that  both  mean  the  same  thing.  No_  one  would 
think  of  applying  the  first  to  the  condition  of  men 
after  death.  It  applies  to  the  Jews  as  God  s  peculiar 
people,  and  their  beini,^  deprived  of  that  position  on 
account  of  their  nnfaithfulness,  and  the  miseries  they 
would  bring  upon  themselves  m  consecpience.  All 
parts  of  the' parables  are  in  harmony  with  this  con- 
struction. The  next  parable  so  exactly  hke  this,  can 
have  no  other  application.  This,  therefore,  is  the  ap- 
plication we  make  of  it.  The  context  will  justity  no 
other. 

As  we  come  still  nearer  the  passage,  we  are  ex- 
plaining, the  evidence  accumulates.  There  a  lew 
expressions  that  immediately  precede  the  passage, 
which  we  have  not  vet  quoted,  that  will  not  permit 
any  other  application  than  the  one  we  have  chosen. 

The  Savior  says,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John ;  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it  Ihe  old 
dispensation  was  eontinued  untd  John  the  iiaptist. 
After  that  the  Gospel  was  preached.  The  subject 
then,  is  that  of  the  two  dispensations.  The  exact 
point  of  time,  that  separates  between  the  old  and  the 
new  economy,  was  not  the  appearance  of  John  the 
Baptist;  but,  more  properly,  the  destruction  ot  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  dissolution  of  the  Jewish  state.  But 
the  reference  to  John  the  Baptist  was  very  proper,  as 
he  occupied  a  position  between  the  two  dispensations. 
He  announced  the  close  of  the  old,  and  the  beginning 
of  the  new.  The  Jews  believed  that  such  a  messen- 
ger would  come  before  the  time  of  the  Messiah. 
They  should  have  received  him,  and  believed  his 
message,  and  been  prepared  for  the  coming  event. 


30  BIBLICAL    EXPOSITOE. 

Had  they  acted  as  wisely  as  the  steward,  they  would 
have  done  this  ;  but  they  had  not  done  so,  and  must 
take  the  consequences. 

The  next  passage  to  this,  appears  at  first  to  be  an 
entire  change  of  the  subject;  but  a  little  thought  will 
convince  any  one  that  it  is  the  same  subject,  iJlnstrat- 
ed  by  a  comparison.  The  passage  is  tliis  : —  "  Whoso 
putteth  away  his  wife  and  manMetii  anotlier,  commit- 
teth  adultery;  and  whosoever  marrieth  her  that  is  put 
away  from  her  husband,  committeth  adultery."  The 
meaning  is,  that,  wdiile  the  law  was  in  force,  the  Jews 
should  not  put  it  away.  It  was  as  wrong  to  do  so  as 
for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  and  marry  another. 
But  now  that  the  law  was  virtually  put  away,  and 
would  soon  be  utterly  abolished,  it  was  as  wrong  for 
them  to  adhere  to  it,  as  it  would  be  for  a  man  to  mar- 
ry her  that  had  been  put  away  from  her  husband. 

In  view  of  this  passage,  and  similar  ones  that  pre- 
cede it,  what  ouglit  we  to  think  of  the  application  ol 
the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  when  we  see  that  this  par- 
able is  the  very  next  thing  that  is  spoken  ?  It  follows 
immediately  after  the  two  passages  last  quoted ;  and 
the  two  passa,f^es  last  quoted,  do,  beyond  a  douht,  refer 
to  the  tivo  disjjeyisations.  It  is  equally  beyond  a 
doubt,  that  this  passage  has  the  same  reference. 

The  rich  man's  life  time,  has  reference  to  the  Jew- 
ish dispensation.  The  life  time  of  Lazarus  has  refer- 
ence to  the  same  period.  The  first  concerns  the 
Jews,  the  last  the  Gentiles.  The  one  was  rich,  the 
other  poor.  The  one  was  clothed  in  purple  and  fine 
linen  and  fared  sumptuously.  The  other  was  desti- 
tute,—  was  fed  with  the  crumbs  that  fell  from  the 
rich  man's  table,  — was  full  of  sores,  which  the  dogs 
endeavored  to  heal. 

Soon  the  scene  is  changed.     The  rich  man  is  in  tor- 


THE    RICH   MAN    AND    LAZARUS.  31 

ment ;  tlie  beii'gar  is  reposing  on  the  bosom  of  Abra- 
ham. Once  the  beggar  desired  the  crumbs  that  fell 
from  the  rich  nian's  table;  now  the  rich  man  is  a 
begi^ar,  and  desires  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tongue, 
l^ie  great  gulf  denotes  the  separation  that  has 
always  existed'between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  For 
though  the  Jews  have  been  scattered  into  all  parts  ot 
the  world,  they  retain  their  identity,  as  perfect,  as 
before  their  downfall.  It  is  not  absolutely  impossible 
to  cross  this  line;  but  it  is  very  difficult,  and  the  pas- 
sage rightly  understood,  expresses  no  more  than  this. 
Itis  not  expected  that  the  points  of  resemblance,  in  a 
parable,  should  be  perfect.  An  approximation  to 
exactness  is  all  that  is  expected ;  so  that  an  iinpassa- 
hle  barrier,  in  the  other  world,  may  properly  denote  a 
difficult  one  in  this. 

Again :  it  would  be  expected  that  the  parable  itself, 
as  well  as  the  context,  should  contain  more  or  less 
indications  of  its  application.  I  think  we  shaU  find  a 
goodlv  number  of  these,  in  the  passage.  A  rich  man 
is  chosen  to  represent  the  Jews,  because  the  object 
was  to  place  before  them  the  privileges  they  had  long 
enjoyed,  as  a  people,  and  of  which  they  were  soon  to 
be  deprived. 

The  rich  man  was  a  Jew.  Of  course  no  other 
would  answer  the  Savior's  purpose.  Had  he  chosen 
a  Gentile,  there  would  have  been  no  point  to  the 
argument.  That  Gentiles  should  find  themselves  in 
torment,  was  no  surprise  to  the  Jews.  They  regard- 
ed them  all  as  only  fit  for  such  a  place.  But  the 
Savior  chooses  a  Jew,  and  shows  that  they  even,  may 
find  themselves  in  misery  at  last.  Hence  he  makes 
him  call  on  Abraham  for  help,  as  the  Jews  would  be 
very  likely  to  do.  He  makes  him  to  call  Abraham 
'  father,  aiid  the  latter  to  call  the  rich  man  his  sooi. 
And  farther,  he  makes  the  rich  man's  brethren  to 
have  Moses  and  the  prophets.     And  if  his  brethren 


32 


BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 


had  Moses  and  the  prophets,  of  course  he  had.  The 
Jews  had  Moses  and  the  prophets,  but  the  Gentiles 
had  not.  And  still  farther,  he  makes  the  rich  man  to 
act  as  a  Jew  only  would  be  likely  to  do.  We  shall 
see  in  what  respect  he  did  so,  after  a  little. 

Again :  the  rich  man  was  not  only  a  Jew,  but  he 
was  apparently  a  Jewish  priest,  precisely  such  an  one 
as  the  Scribes,  who  are  said  to  have  been  present  and 
heard  these  parables.  His  garments  were  purple  and 
nne  linen,  such  as  the  priests  were  accustomed  to 
wear.  He  fared  sumptuously  every  day.  The  law 
made  abundant  provision  for  those  who"  officiated  at 
the  altar.  Besides,  none  but  a  priest  would  have 
kept  a  beggar  so  far  away  from  him.  It  was  not  per- 
mitted him  to  approach  near  to  any  thing  that  was 
impure,  or  permit  any  thing  impure  to  be  brought 
near  to  him.  It  is  not  necessary  to  charge  the  r7ch 
man  with  illiberality.  His  conduct  was  a  part  of  his 
religion.  As  a  Jew,  and  especially  as  a  Jewish 
priest,  he  could  not  do  otherwise. 

Again :  the  rich  man,  in  distress,  calls  on  Abraham 
for  assistance.     It  is  plain  that  the  Jews  were  had  in 
view.     They  boasted  of  their  relation  to  Abraham ; 
and  they  carried  their  confidence  to  a  pernicious  ex- 
treme.     They   even    expected   exemption   from  just 
punishment,  on  account  of  their  relation  to  that  dis- 
tinguished patriarch.     John  the  Baptist  rebuked  this 
unreasonable  confidence,  and  so  did  Jesus.     It  would 
seem  that  there  had  been  reasons  for  rebuking  it  be- 
fore, for  it  is  said  that  this  very  story  of  the  rich  man 
and  the  beggar,  was  found  in  some  old  Jewish  writ- 
ings,  before  the  time  of  Christ.     It  was  a  legend, 
probably  in  common  use  among  them;  and  its  evi' 
dent  purpose,  in  the  first  place,  was  to  show  that  the 
Jews,  as  well  as  the  Gentiles,  might  at  last  be  lost. 
Their  purple  and  fine  linen  would  be  of  no  avail,  nor 
their  avoidance  of  legal  impurity.     They  must  take 


THE    PwICH   MAN   AND    LAZARUS. 


33 


heed  to  the  law  and  the  prophets,  or  they  would  he 
no  more  safe  at  last  than  others. 

Here  the  Savior  applies  it  to  the  evils  they  would 
bring  upon  themselves,  by  their  rejection  of  the  Gos- 
pel. And  he  makes  their  rejection  of  the  Gospel  the 
result  of  their  not  giving  proper  heed  to  Moses  and 
the  prophets.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  speakers  and 
writers  to  make  use  of  legends,  relating  to  the  tuture 
world,  to  illustrate  their  subjects;  but  m  all  such 
cases,  it  is  understood,  that  the  story  is  made  up, 
without  directly  saving  so,  as  no  one  ever  comes  back 
to  report  what  "takes  place  there.  This  is  the  way  we 
should  look  upon  this  story  of  the  rich  man.  As  is 
usual  the  moral  comes  in  at  the  conclusion.  _  "It  they 
hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be 
persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead." 

The  object  was  to  show  the  Jews  that  the  evils  they 
would  experience  might  be  avoided  if  they  under- 
stood and  would  practice  the  teachings  ot  the  Old 
Testament.  He  had  told  them  so  on  many  occasions 
before,  but  now  he  inculcates  the  same  truth ;  and  to 
impress  it  upon  them  more  eifectnally,  he  makes  use 
of  a  legend,  with  which  they  were  no  doubt  already 

acquainted.  ^     •    -      ^i 

The  truth  he  wishes  to  enff^rce,  he  puts  into  tlie 
mouth  of  Abraham.  They  would  be  more  likely  to 
receive  it,  if  it  came  from  him.  Abraham  says,  They 
have  Moses  and  the  prophets,  let  them  hear  them. 
And  this  the  patriarch  says,  not  of  the  rich  man  him- 
self, but  of  his  live  brethren.  The  natural  mierence 
to  be  drawn  was,  that  he  himself  could  have  been 
saved  from  this  place  of  torments,  if  he  had  been 
faithful  to  the  law  which  he  professed  to  love. 

By  this  indirect  method,  the  Savior  shows  the 
Jews,  and  upon  the  authority  of  their  renowned  pro- 
genitor, that  all  their  calamities  would  be  attributable, 
not  directly  to  their  rejection  of  the  Gospel,  but  to 


34  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

their  disobedience  of  the  hiw.  The  reader  will  agree 
with  me  that  this  matter  is  managed  >Tery  skillfully. 
One  would  think  that  the  Saviors  rebukes  and  admo- 
nitions must  have  been  irresistible,  coming  to  them  in 
the  form  here  adopted.  The  Savior  does  not  say  to 
the  Jews  that  they  were  disobedient  to  the  law.  He 
does  not  even  choose  a  character  to  represent  them 
that  was  outwardly  immoral.  On  the  contrary,  the 
rich  man  was  certainly'  as  exclusive  as  the  law  re- 
quired. But  he  makes  Abraham  settle  the  account 
with  them.  lie  was  one  in  whom  they  placed  un- 
bounded confidence.  He  tells  them,  indirectly  to  be 
sure,  but  plainly,  that  their  unhappiness  would  be 
owing  to  the  disobedience  of  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets. 

What  shall  we  now  say  of  the  beggar?  Plainly  he 
was  as  tit  a  representative  of  the  Gendles,  as  the  rich 
man  was  of  the  Jews.  While  the  rich  man  was  yet 
living,  the  condition  of  the  beggar  was  wretched  and 
forlorn.  When  the  rich  man  died,  and  found  himself 
in  torment,  the  beggar  also  died,  and  was  carried  to 
Abraham's  bosom.  This  was  exceedingly  significant. 
The  position  the  Jews  had  claimed  for  themselves,  is 
denied  them,  and  assigned  to  those  whom  they  de- 
spised. The  full  meaning  of  the  passage  is  partly 
concealed.  Lying  on  the  bosom,  as  at  a  feast,  is  what 
is  referred  to.  The  posture  the  Jews  observed  at 
table,  was  such  a  reclining  one,  that  he  who  sat  or 
reclined  next  to  another,  nearly  leaned  on  his  bosom. 
John  leaned  on  Jesus'  bosom  at  the  last  supper. 
And  to  express  intimacy,  it  is  said  of  the  Savior,  that 
he  was  in  (or  on)  the  bosom  of  the  Father.  Here 
then  is  Lazarus,  —  the  representative  of  the  Gentile 
world,  reclining,  at  a  splendid  entertainment,  on  the 
bosom  of  the  patriarch  Abraham ;  while  the  rich 
man, —  the  representative  of  the  Jews,  is  afar  off,  and 
is  not  permitted  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tongue. 


THE    EICII   MAN    ATSTD    LAZAEUS.  35 

The  mcanino;  is,  tliat  tlic  Gentiles,  having  embraced 
the  faitli  of  Abraham,  which  the  Jews  wonhl  not  do, 
are  now  seated  at  the  Gospel  feast,  while  the  Jews 
are  shut  out.  The  same  idea  is  exprossoc)  in  other 
passages,  where  it  is  said,  that  many  shall  come  from 
the  east  and  from  the  west,  from  the  north  and  from 
the  south,  and  shall  sit  down  (recline  as  at  a  table  is 
the  meaning  of  the  original)  with  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob.  But  the  children  of  the  kingdom  (the 
Jews  or  rich  man)  shall  be  cast  out  into  outer  dark- 
ness, where  shall  be  wx'eping  and  gnashing  of  teeth. 

To  be  carried  by  the  angels  to  Abraham's  bosom, 
may  represent  tlie  agency  of  the  apostles,  by  whose 
preaching,  mainly,  the  Gentiles  were  converted  and 
brought  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  sores  of  the 
beggar  may  denote  the  moral  defilement  of  the  whole 
Gentile  world;  and  the  dogs  may  refer  to  the  heathen 
philosophers  and  moralists,  who  sought  to  lieal  the 
spiritual  diseases  of  the  people.  And,  it  is  easy  to 
find  scriptural  examples  of  the  usage  in  all  these 
cases.  But  these  things,  and  some  others  that  we 
may  not  notice  at  all,  we  deem  unimportant,  and  shall 
pass  them  by  with  little  or  no  attention.  It  is  well 
understood  that  many  things  are  mentioned,  in  a  par- 
able, that  are  not  important,  and  only  serve  for  orna- 
ment, or  to  connect  things  that  are  important. 

It  has  often  been  asked,  "What  is  meant  by  the  five 
brethren  ?  It  would  be  no  detriment  to  our  interpre- 
tation, if  we  should  say,  that  there  is  no  particular 
meaning  to  be  attached  to  this  circumstance.  We 
used  to  think  the  five  brethren  meant  the  Samaritans, 
and  there  are  pretty  good  reasons  for  that  opinion. 
But  we  are  now  more  inclined  to  believe  that  the  five 
brethren  are  introduced  with  a  view  to  make  the  re- 
buke of  the  rich  man  more  indirect,  and  therefore, 
really  more  eflective.     Abraham  does  not  say  to  the 


36  BIBLICAL    EXPOSITOE. 

rich  man,  "  You  might  have  kept  out  of  this  place  of 
torment,  if  you  had  taken  heed  to  Moses  and  the 
prophets."  JSTo ;  Abraham  does  not  say  this  of  the 
rich  man  himself;  but  he  says  it  of  his  live  brethren. 
It  was  an  indirect  way  of  saying  the  same  thing  of 
the  rich  man ;  but  it  was  a  more  generous  way,  as 
the  other  would  have  seemed  reproachful  and  heart- 
less. Wo  have  a  saying  like  this:  —  '^  One  man  is 
whij^bed  over  another's  shoulders."  That  is  what 
Abraham  did  in  this  case.  And  we  think  the  live 
brethren  vvero  mentioned  for  this  very  purpose,  and 
for  no  other.  The  upshot  of  the  whole  matter  is,  that 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  were  present  and 
heard  these  parables,  saw  themselves  accused  of 
bringing  all  their  calamities  upon  themselves,  by 
their  unfaithfulness  to  the  law  and  the  prophets. 
Jesus  does  not  say  this  to  them.  He  makes  Abra- 
ham to  say  it  —  not  to  them,  nor  of  them  directly, 
but  of  their  five  brethren.  How  admirably  this  was 
done !  Surely  nothing  could  exceed  the  skill  with 
which  the  Savior  rebukes,  and  instructs,  and  con- 
founds his  adversaries. 

There  is  one  thing  alluded  to  in  the  parable,  in 
connection  with  the  five  brethren,  that  ought  not  to 
be  passed  over,  as  it  shows  conclusively  that  the  com- 
mon interpretation  of  this  parable  is  not  correct.  The 
five  brethren  are  referred  to  the  Old  Testament,  for 
all  necessary  information  about  the  place  of  tor- 
ment. This  is  very  singular,  for  we  would  like  to 
know,  where,  in  the  Old  Testament,  this  place  of  tor- 
ment, (if  it  be  hell  in  the  future  world,)  is  spoken  of? 
We  say  there  is  no  such  place.  Doctor  George 
Campbell,  a  celebrated  orthodox  theologian  and  critic, 
says  there  is  no  place  where  this  subject  is  mentioned. 
Many  other  celebrated  writers,  of  the  same  scliool, 
have  said  the  same.  How  could  the  five  brethren 
learn  any  thing  about  a  place  of  future  torment,  from 


THE    RICH    MAN    AND    LAZARUS.  37 

Moses  and  the  prophets,  when  Moses  and  the  pro- 
phets are  wholly  silent  as  to  such  a  place  ?  They 
could  obtain,  from  Moses  and  the  prophets,  all  neces- 
sary information,  as  to  the  temporal  punishment  to 
which  they  were  exposed,  but  not  of  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment. It  is  therefore  certain  that  the  parable 
refers  to  temporal  and  not  eternal  punishment. 

The  only  impoi'tant  topic  that  remains  to  be  dis- 
cussed, is  the  duration  of  the  punishment  represented 
in  this  passage.  The  tigm-e  employed  does  not  settle 
this  question.  The  gulf  was  impassable.  But  a  gulf 
that  is  impassable  at  one  time,  may  be  passable  at 
another;  and  indeed  it  may  even  cease  to  exist. 
There  is  a  law  of  nature  that  tends  to  fill  up  all  gulfs. 
There  is  also  a  moral  law,  that  is  equally  efficient, 
that  tends  to  remove  all  distinctions  among  men  of 
which  gulfs  in  nature  are  emblematic. 

The  prophet  says  that.  Every  valley  shall  be  filled, 
and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  brought  low, 
the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and  the  rough 
places  plain ;  and  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of 
God.  Paul  refers  to  the  same  separation  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  calls  it  a  wall  of  partition ; 
but  he  says  that  Jesus  came  to  break  down  that  wall, 
and  t(j  bring  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  together,  and  of 
the  twain  to  make  one. 

In  another  j^assage,  he  speaks  still  more  plaiidy. 
He  says  expressly  that  God  has  not  cast  away  his  pe(_>- 
ple  ;  that  they  have  not  stumbled  that  they  should  fall ; 
that  blindness  in  part  has  happened  to  them,  till  the 
fullness  of  the  Gentiles  should  come  in,  and  then  all 
Israel  should  be  saved ;  that  God  had  included  them 
dU  in  unbelief,  that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all. 

The  parables  we  have  been  considering,  including 
the  text,  have  reference  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
under  the  two  dispensations.     There  is  no  reason  for 


38  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOR. 

believing  that,  on  the  whole,  the  one  class  was  better 
than  the  other ;  or  that,  in  the  end,  one  will  be  treated 
better  than  the  other.  It  was  not  altogether  the  mis- 
fortune of  the  Gentiles  that  they  were  unhappy.  It 
was  their  fault.  The  jDOverty  of  the  beggar,  and  his 
sores,  are  the  result  of  his  sins,  as  well  as  his  misfor- 
tunes. But  his  punishment  was  not  perpetual.  Why 
then  claim  that  the  punishment  of  the  rich  man  is  so? 
The  Gentiles  sinned  and  were  punished.  The  Jews 
sinned  and  are  now  being  punished.  The  ])unish- 
ment  of  the  one  came  to  an  end,  why  not  that  of  the 
other  ? 

All  these  parables  teach  that  punishment  is  disci- 
plinary. In  that  of  the  prodigal  son,  the  doctrine  is 
set  forth  very  clear!}'.  His  punishment  wrought  his 
reformation.  If  the  elder  brother  does  wrong,  what 
shall  hinder  his  punishment  from  having  the  same 
effect  ?  He  refused  to  go  in  to  tlie  supper.  When 
he  has  remained  out  long  enough,  so  as  to  be  willing 
to  eat  the  husks  fed  to  the  swine,  no  doubt  he  will  be 
willing  to  come  in,  and  sit  down  at  the  father's  table. 
And  there  is  abundant  evidence  tiiat  the  father  will 
be  as  willing  to  receive  him,  as  he  was  the  other. 
Bear  in  mind  that  this  elder  brother  is  the  rich  man. 
We  insist  that,  if  punishment  is  reformatory  with  one 
of  the  two  brothers,  it  should  be  so  regarded  with  the 
other. 

The  steward  was  dismissed  from  his  lord's  service, 
because  he  was  unfaithful.  Who  can  say  that  he  will 
always  be  unfaithful  'i  He  may  not  find  his  plan  of 
making  friends  with  his  master's  customers,  to  work 
as  welt  as  he  expected.  Such  dishonest  tricks  are  not 
apt  to  work  well.  And,  if  at  last,  he  should  be  com- 
pelled to  dig  or  to  beg,  he  may  ultimately  find  that 
honesty  is  the  best  policy,  and  become  a  faithful,  hon 
est  man.  Who  shall  say,  in  this  case,  that  he  wil. 
not  be  restored  to  the  confidence  of  his  lord,  and  rein- 
stated in  his  former  position?     This  steward  is  the 


THE   RICH  MAN   AND    LAZAEUS.  39 

rich  man,  and  the  pimishraent  of  the  one  will  termi- 
nate with  that  of  the  other. 

In  all  the  cases  brought  before  us,  in  these  parables, 
there  is  no  intrinsic  worth  to  be  attached  to  one  of  the 
parties,  that  does  not  belong  to  the  other.  The  lost 
sheep  was  as  valuable  as  the  sheep  not  lost.  The 
same  (A'  the  pieces  of  silver.  The  same  of  the  two 
brothers ;  the  same  of  the  steward  and  his  customers ; 
the  same  of  the  rich  man  and  Luzarus.  Why  then 
should  the  fate  of  the  one,  be  essentially  different 
from  that  of  the  other  ?  It  can  not  be.  The  interest 
which  the  owner  of  the  sheep  took  in  his  animals,  and 
the  effort  he  made  to  save,  even  one  of  them,  points 
to  God  as  he  stands  related  to  his  children.  The 
father  of  the  prodigal  son  and  of  the  elder  brother,  is 
a  faint  representation  of  the  Great  Fatlier  of  all  man- 
kind. Shall  such  a  Father  feel  no  interest  in  his  chil- 
dren?—  or  an  interest  in  one,  that  he  does  not  in 
others  ?  Is  not  the  rich  man  as  much  a  child  of  God, 
and  an  object  of  his  love,  as  the  beggar  ? 

We  conclude  by  remarking,  that  all  the  surround- 
ings of  this  parable,  favor  the  construction  we  have 
given  of  it.  And  the  principles  inculcated  in  the 
other  parables,  in  the  same  discourse,  forbid  that  we 
believe  in  the  endless  punishment  of  the  rich  man. 
We  must  not  make  one  of  these  parables  to  contradict 
the  others.  If  the  one  makes  the  Creator  to  go  after 
his  wandering  children,  till  he  finds  them,  and  restores 
them  to  safety.  If  the  one  makes  the  Creator  kind 
and  forgiving  and  impartial  —  if  this  be  so,  we  must 
give  such  a  construction  to  the  others,  as  shall  not 
conflict  with  these  views.  We  submit,  whether  our 
construction  is  not  the  only  one  that  makes  all  of 
them  harmonious. 

It  is  the  great  fault  of  readers  and  interpreters,  that 
they  do  not  look  with  sufficient  attention,  to  the  con- 
nection and  circumstances  of  a  passage  that  involves 


40  BIBLICAL   EXPOSITOE. 

some  difficulties.  That  is  especially  true  of  the  one 
we  have  been  considering.  I  can  not  conceive  that 
we  have  any  right  to  take  the  parable  of  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus,  out  from  the  place  it  occupies,  and  en- 
deavor to  explain  it  by  itself,  having  no  reference  to 
the  parables  with  which  it  is  connected.  They  were 
all  spoken  on  one  occasion,  and  all  consecutively,  by 
the  divine  author ;  and  what  he  has  joined  together 
we  should  not  ]")ut  asunder.  It  is  one  of  the  plainest 
facts,  that  one  of  these  parables  teaches  the  disciplin- 
ary nature  of  punishment.  If  then  another  parable, 
connected  with  this,  speaks  of  punishment,  without 
connecting  this  idea  with  it,  we  must  not  conclude 
that  the  idea  is  repudiated.  This  sets  the  Savior 
against  himself.  It  makes  him  to  assert  a  truth  and 
then  contradict  it.  It  is  farther  certain,  that  one  of 
these  parables  represents  the  Great  Father,  as  using 
means  for  the  recovery  and  salvation  of  his  children, 
and  as  being  successful.  Suppose  every  parable  does 
not  contain  this  thought.  Is  it,  therefore,  to  be  ex- 
cluded and  denied?  This  would  be  inconsistent. 
We  must  associate  all  the  parables  together,  and 
accept  the  doctrines  which  they  all  teach.  They  are 
not  contradictory ;  and  we  have  no  right  to  make 
them  so,  with  a  view  to  build  up  a  false  and  perni- 
cious theory,  having  its  origin  in  heathenism. 


BIBLICAL     RBVIIZlTir  s 

OR,  NEW   AND   IMPROVED   COMMENTARY   ON -THE    BIBLJ 
By  Rkv.  W.  E.  MANLEY,  Author  and  Piblisukk. 

This  Woi^k  was  commenced  a  few  years  since,  and  now  tliei-« 
are  three  Volumes  published.  These  three  Volumes  complete 
the  Commentary  on  the  Five  Books  of  Moses.  The  plan  o^ 
which  tlie  Work  is  constructed,  is  entirely  new,  and,  beyond  j 
doubt,  is  a  great  imprt)vement  on  the  old  Comnjentaries.  Tlu 
Scriptures  are  not  ex])lained  continuously,  or  in  the  order  o 
chaptei-8  and  verses,  which  is  the  usual  method;  but  thev  sltL 
explained  by  subjects.  Whatever  part  of  the  Bible  is  embracer 
in  any  Volume,  every  subject  in  that  part  is  illustrated  and  ex- 
plained. In  this  way  all  the  subjects  in  the  Bible  come  iindei 
review  in  the  progress  of  the  Work.  Thus,  by  means  of  an 
Index,  alphabftically  arranged,  any  subject  can  be'  found  a^'once; 
and,  if  desiiiible,  that  subject  can  be  pursued  through  all  the  Vol- 
umes ;  and  then  the  reader  has  all  thei-e  is  abe^Jt  it  in  the  Bible^ 
and  all  requisite  explanations.  Nothing  like  this  can  be  done 
with  the  other  Commentaries.  ^ 

This  Work  has  received  the  unqualified  approbation  of  the 
lilieral  press,  and  of  the  (K'nomination  to  which  the  author  be- 
longs. He  means  to  desci-ve  that  approbation  ;  and  if  the  peo- 
ple will  sustain  him,  he  will,  by  and  by,  give  them  a  cotnplete, 
series  of  books  that  shall  reward  their  aid  and  influence  in  it^ 
behalf.  Ill  health,  as  one  reafeon,  and  the  condition  of  the  coun- 
try, as  anothei-,  have  kept  him  from  publishing  the  books  as  rap- 
idly as  he  otherwise  would  have  doue.  lie  trusts  that  ere  lono- 
the  j-eturn  of  peace  to  the  country,  the  return  of  quiet  to  the 
people,  the  reduction  of  prices,  and  the  improved  health  of  him- 
self, will  permit  a  more  rapid  issuing  of  the  books.  In  the 
meantime,  we  must  wait  and  hope. 

We  could  quote  any  number  of  names  of  our  best  men,  from 
whom  we  have  received  commendations,  but  this  is  unnecessarv. 
All  admit  that  such  a  Work  is  needed,  and  if  any  one  doubV> 
whether  he  shall  be  pleased  with  it,  tlie  best  way  to  satisfy  him- j 
self,  is,  to   purchase  a  single  Volume,  and  make  up  his'  mind  ] 
from  that.     The  books  are  sold  separately  oiv  by  the  set.     Vol 
umes  1st  and  2d,  $1.50  each;  Volume  3d,  $2.00;  the  set,  $6.0U. 
In  Clubs  ol'  t\vo  or  more,  each  taking  a  set,  1  will  defray  the 
expense.  '  ' 

Address  the  author  at  his  residence,  118  West  Polk  Street 
Chicitgo.  III.  W.  E.  MANLEY.      J 

Januakv,  1865.  •  I 


P.  S.  It  would  be  a  very  easy  matter  to  circulate  this  Work  extensively,  if  soim 
one  in  each  Imality,  where  we  have  friends,  would  undertake  the  business.  Then 
is  no  place,  wliere  at  least  two  names  could  not  be  obtained.  Do  not  wait  for  tin 
books  to  be  brought  to  you.  We  can  not  visit  all  places,  and  it  is  too  expensive 
to  send  agent.-;.  There  is  a  much  better  way.  Let  each  get  a  neighbor  to  join 
him  and  send  on.  Who  will  do  thus,  and  so  do  himself  a  favor,  assist  the  publish 
er,  and  benefit  the  world?  W.  E.  M. 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

:Z^   Syracuse,  N.   Y 
Stockton,  Colif. 


DATE  DUE 


DEMCO  38-297 


BS2418.IVI279 

The  rich  man  and  Lazarus... 


mi'r  III Till""'"^'"'  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00066  0219 


:'«S».-;*T^  .1 


.«rw-;: 


-'^il«k>..._J»- 


